[cc-humanrights] Attendance and Recordings of the CCWP ICANN and Human Rights call of 20 February 2019 at 1400 UTC.
aruckstuhl at cris.unu.edu
Tue Feb 26 18:41:30 UTC 2019
I’ve provided my answers to Collin’s questions below in Blue. I encourage more of you to chime in! 😊
From: cc-humanrights <cc-humanrights-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Collin Kurre <collin at article19.org>
Date: Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 10:48 AM
To: Human Rights <cc-humanrights at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [cc-humanrights] Attendance and Recordings of the CCWP ICANN and Human Rights call of 20 February 2019 at 1400 UTC.
Thanks! Following up, here are some questions ahead of our Kobe meeting:
* How can we get people to interact with this new work on HRIAs?
* I suggest we get a few model spreadsheets up and running simultaneously for each PDP (we can all it HRIA 1.0, to signal that it may evolve). Host all of the open access documents on the CCWP-HR website and spread the word to the community. We can even have a webinar tutorial to introduce the model and guide individuals on how to use it (hosted on youtube for easy access later). Give people multiple entry points. Engage highly with the 20% who contribute and don’t worry about the 80% who critique from the shadows.
* Which groups / people should we invite to discuss impact assessments as a tool for constructive engagement across stakeholder groups?
* I think everyone should be invited to learn about the tool and contribute. The more you inform people about the HRIA model, the more likely it is to be used in some form down the road. If you invite everyone to a training session on the new model, you might find that people will start to use it because they find political benefit in pointing out a human rights vulnerability. I would keep it simple. Recruit more interested people. Give them a chance to add data from their PDP or WG. Invite them to sign up to a newsletter or the mailing list.
* What other topics or issues should be discussed during our F2F session?
* I would keep it simple and clear to not overwhelm people. Have a feedback session. Training followed by Q&A on the new model. Just my suggestion.
* How can we make the link to human rights clearer?
* Proposal: add an explainer tab
* What’s missing / confusing / unnecessary / etc?
* Proposal: include vulnerable groups in description
* Proposal: add new column on Applicable Human Rights Law
* In my opinion, having the “Focus” and “Topic” columns are confusing on the left. If it were up to me, I would name Column A: “Short Descriptions” as a unique identifier of issues. It could also be called “Issue”. Then have Description as column B, followed by “Focus” in C and “Topic” in D. (See example below using the current data from the model.) This would allow you to lock the column like you have done to the top row. As the spreadsheet grows, this will allow for clarity. It also allows the reader to quickly review what types of issues that are being dealt with.
Selection criteria in Applicant Guidebook too general and not interpreted consistently
Applicants not provided with sufficient information regarding deadlines and time required to complete process
Applicant Support Program
Applicants not provided with sufficient information on overall fees for costs
Applicant Support Program
Notice of scoring practice
Unclear to applicants what criteria / which scoring practice will be used in selection practice
Applicant Support Program
Unlimited changes permitted to application fields
* Who should carry out the impact assessments?
* Proposal: members of the CCWP-HR
* I think definitely CCWP-HR should spearhead the work, but I think there should always be a way for anyone in the community to add their thoughts or input.
* When should the assessment be carried out?
* Proposal: continuously, from inception until final report, feeding into all public comment periods
* Agree with everyone that it should be throughout and also during public comments.
* What’s the best way to link the energy of newcomers and expertise of outsiders with the knowledge of ICANN veterans?
* By asking good questions. We could send our working models to the PDP group and ask for input on an open call of ours. The more we inquire and remain open, the more likely they are to engage.
Please feel free to share any additional thoughts or comments.
Greetings from London,
On 20 Feb 2019, at 15:18, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>> wrote:
Please find presentation slides, attendance and recordings of the CCWP ICANN and Human Rights call of 20 February 2019 at 1400 UTC.
Attendance: Akriti Bopana, Austin Ruckstuhl, Bruna Santos, Collin Kurre, David McAuley, Desara Dushi, Emily Escartin, Herb Waye, Ioana Stupariu, Joanna Kulesza, Louise Marie Hurel, Meghan Healy, Mequanint Yehuala, Niels ten Oever, Stefan Filipovic | Staff: Maryam Bakoshi
AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7h1l62kimb/<https://participate.icann.org/p7h1l62kimb/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=f796aa9ea86da90c5c21c79456d1dc5e60d3652e07b7b5c8006ea97798bd45d5>
AC Chat: Attached
Presentation Slides: Attached
Maryam Bakoshi | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator
ICANN | Internet Corporation got Assigned Names and Numbers
S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | T: +44 7846 471777
<ccwphr_200219.mp3><CCWP-HR Feb19 meeting.pdf><acchat_ccwphr_200219.pdf>_______________________________________________
cc-humanrights mailing list
cc-humanrights at icann.org<mailto:cc-humanrights at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-humanrights